33 réponses à ce sujet

[Linkenski]

The pre-alpha gameplay from 2013 looked more interesting and dynamic than what we got. It even had cinematic cutscenes with the boring NPC's in the sandbox areas and it had this cool keep system, where you had to defend the keeps you aquired.

I seem to recall Bioware stated they couldn't make it work in the longer run, but have they ever elaborated on this? Could it have been last-gen or so their programmers just suck? (excuse me).

[X Equestris]

It was the last gen consoles. They couldn't handle everything going on at once. I'm pretty sure this is why they cut last-gen dlc support, considering how many enemies there are at a few places in The Descent.

[Heimdall]

No it was never explained. My money's on last-gen though.

EDIT: I stand corrected, but I was right as well

[Pokemario]

IIRC,they said it's because of last-gen's limitations.

[Sunnie]

There were comments made by Darrah/Laidlaw alluding to last gen console limitations being a big reason why a lot of what they wanted to do was cut.

 

Waxing nostalgic; I remember a time when games were designed for PC first with all the bells and whistles, and then ported to console where things got cut to make them work. Now, we get lowest denominator console games ported to next gen/PC with none of the stuff that makes games cool. Sad change is sad.

[Darkstarr11]

There were comments made by Darrah/Laidlaw alluding to last gen console limitations being a big reason why a lot of what they wanted to do was cut.

 

Waxing nostalgic; I remember a time when games were designed for PC first with all the bells and whistles, and then ported to console where things got cut to make them work. Now, we get lowest denominator console games ported to next gen/PC with none of the stuff that makes games cool. Sad change is sad.

 

 

I do too.  I mean, I am a console gamer, but LCD is a bad way to go.  I love Dragon Age, and am happy we got it, but I am envious of what the PC got.  It IS a more powerful system (or can be depending on what you have), so I can't begrudge them getting a better deal.  Like...buying a sports car vs a beater.  Yes, both get you somewhere nice, and thats what matters, but I can't get mad because someone else got all the bells and whistles when I didn't pony up the dough for the primo, right?  I know it sounds bad, but it's like any premium service...Playstation Plus, Xbox Live, EA Access...if you pay more, you are going to get more.  Simple as that.  If they had started big and then scaled it down for the PS3 and 360, would it really have hurt?  

 

Oh, and I too wish they had kept the Keep Customizations in.  There were a few things that got trimmed...its too bad.  It would have been nice to have a physical reflection of your choices represented in game.  Are you more military, diplomatic...or are you all about the intelligence gathering?  Missed opportunities...

[Linkenski]

Uhh, they DID start big and scaled it down for PS3 and 360. They said they started building the game for the most aggressive gamer pc they could build, but I guess push came to shove and they had to turn that monster into a PS3 game and keep parity across all platforms in order to support them all post-release.

[Jester]

Well, releasing the game for old gen was a huge mistake.

Not only they had to strip features (which made the game significantly worse than it could have been probably), but I'm pretty sure it sold really badly on old consoles. Not to mention it looked horrible (does it still have those low mesh hairstyles, which look like plastic, or did they manage to fix that?). 

 

This isn't even like, my opinion. By dropping DLC support for old gen, BioWare basically admitted it. 

So it's just a fact. 

[adorkable-panda]

It's really unfortunate but they were trying to cater to those who haven't upgraded to a new system yet. Plus if they supported last gen I'm sure they were hoping to boost sales as a whole becuase it's reaching two other platforms. It really sucks that this took priority of the quality of the actual game. At the same time, I felt like it was pointless because they even ceased dlc support so it's like releasing the game on previous consoles was literally pointless. Now they're basically telling those who beat the game on previous consoles that if they want to continue their adventure they need to upgrade. I really wish they would've done this in the first place instead and kept the game up to par with PC or at the very least next gen. 

[TheImmortalBeaver]

I would not be at all surprised if this was an executive decision on EA's part to try and cover as wide of an audience as possible. I understand it from a general business mindset, but given the realitiies of game development it was not a good move. Older hardware doesn't just force a downgrade in visual quality, and it doesn't seem like EA or BioWare or whoever ended up ultimately making that choice understood this prior to DAI's release.

[rapscallioness]

I would not be at all surprised if this was an executive decision on EA's part to try and cover as wide of an audience as possible. I understand it from a general business mindset, but given the realitiies of game development it was not a good move. Older hardware doesn't just force a downgrade in visual quality, and it doesn't seem like EA or BioWare or whoever ended up ultimately making that choice understood this prior to DAI's release.

 

Yeah, this is what I suspect. EA was probably worried about how much DAI would sell, and they were trying to make sure the costs were covered. Then it apparently sold well enough, so they no longer had to worry about that.

 

I think it was a case of too many "Suits" in the kitchen, and all that.

[Dai Grepher]

Personally, I think there was something else at work here. It had nothing to do with last gen consoles, which I think could have handled it.

 

In my opinion, the BioWare crew promised something they couldn't deliver on.

 

The demo was not all gameplay footage. I think much of it was rendered. Meaning, it wasn't actually playable. They only made it appear that way to trick the audience.

 

Now, I'm sure BioWare wanted to include features like that in the finished product, but in the end they had to devote most of their time to making the game reach "barely functional" status, which is what we got on launch.

 

And as a result, all that special content was never even developed. Nothing was cut. It never existed in the first place.

 

Last gen is just a convenient excuse. But I don't buy it. Like Sunnie pointed out, the typical way of doing things is to make the best game possible for PCs, and then cut down to meet last gen tech. But this wasn't done. Also, I think last gen could have easily handled it. Even the PS2 could handle random or timed events in GTA:San Andreas, and the day/night and time systems weren't just functional in that game, but even the Nintendo 64 could handle that in Majora's Mask!

 

Also, I don't think EA execs had anything to do with it. And by the way, look at DA:I now. No last gen support. So if they were planning on dropping last gen for DLCs anyway, then why did they "cater" to them? And now that last gen has been dropped, are we going to get DLCs that "restore" the demo's features? I doubt it.

[Silas7]

So much Potential, hopefully now that bioware has dropped old-gen support they can design a true expansion worth the 20$-30$.

[X Equestris]

Last gen is just a convenient excuse. But I don't buy it. Like Sunnie pointed out, the typical way of doing things is to make the best game possible for PCs, and then cut down to meet last gen tech. But this wasn't done. Also, I think last gen could have easily handled it. Even the PS2 could handle random or timed events in GTA:San Andreas, and the day/night and time systems weren't just functional in that game, but even the Nintendo 64 could handle that in Majora's Mask!
 
Also, I don't think EA execs had anything to do with it. And by the way, look at DA:I now. No last gen support. So if they were planning on dropping last gen for DLCs anyway, then why did they "cater" to them? And now that last gen has been dropped, are we going to get DLCs that "restore" the demo's features? I doubt it.

Except that's what they did. They developed the system on PC and it was working well. But the last gens couldn't handle it. This was the main reason behind it being cut.

[X Equestris]

Here we go: http://www.eurogamer...s-of-dragon-age

It's mentioned below the video near the end of the article.

[Sunnie]

The relevant parts....

Spoiler

One problem the team did have to tackle was maintaining Inquisition's simultaneous development across five platforms, including two console generations.

 

"We established fairly early on we would maintain gameplay parity. Visually, obviously, we knew there would be differences - if there wasn't then we'd have severely missed our mark. PC is a powerhouse now, PS4 and Xbox One have the benefit of a decade of hardware development." The PS3 and Xbox 360 in comparison have "memory limitations", Laidlaw continues, but sometimes the limitations lead to new ideas.

 

"Yes we could have had more enemies on screen, but instead we were able to think about how we could have enemies that work together - buffing each other, for example. Was there a potential for us, if we went beyond Gen 3, to go further? Sure, but we have to build a game that we are able to ship in the box."

 

Sections of the game were adjusted as a result, as it became clear that some ideas were not going to work as originally planned. A version of the game demoed at PAX Prime in 2013, around a year before the game's final release, showed hints of a war simulation system, where players would have to focus on building up and maintaining military strength around their captured keeps.

 

"We had to do some changes," Laidlaw admits. "That was something where we had a good working prototype but we hit a snag due to the technical limitations on it. Having multiple forces fighting works fine on PC but you end up in a situation where having realistic-feeling war on the older consoles is exceedingly challenging."

 

The game used to feature more environmental destruction, too, and a greater number of options for solving missions. Boats could be burnt and bridges collapsed to affect the strength of enemy forces. These items were cut based "a little bit [on the last-gen] platforms, a little bit about the flow of the gameplay," Laidlaw adds. "We didn't want to build a military campaign simulator and have one zone riddled with that but others that don't have keeps be different - we wanted a consistency across the game.

 

"So it was about recognizing the things from playtests where we realize we can almost do something but it does fall down at a certain point. And we did reuse some of that - for example, when moving the trebuchets in Haven - so we didn't throw 100 per cent of the systems out.

 

"But do we have a hunger to revisit those systems and explore them? Absolutely. Environmental interaction adds a mental level to the game where you feel like the world is more responsive and aware of your actions - where you can, for example, accidentally set something on fire."

[Dai Grepher]

That interview was laughable. Thanks to X Equestris for posting it, and to Sunnie for quoting it.

 

"Yes we could have had more enemies on screen, but instead we were able to think about how we could have enemies that work together - buffing each other, for example.

 

Was there a potential for us, if we went beyond Gen 3, to go further? Sure, but we have to build a game that we are able to ship in the box."

 

The game used to feature more environmental destruction, too, and a greater number of options for solving missions. Boats could be burnt and bridges collapsed to affect the strength of enemy forces. These items were cut based "a little bit [on the last-gen] platforms, a little bit about the flow of the gameplay," Laidlaw adds. "We didn't want to build a military campaign simulator and have one zone riddled with that but others that don't have keeps be different - we wanted a consistency across the game.

 

"So it was about recognizing the things from playtests where we realize we can almost do something but it does fall down at a certain point. And we did reuse some of that - for example, when moving the trebuchets in Haven - so we didn't throw 100 per cent of the systems out.

 

"But do we have a hunger to revisit those systems and explore them? Absolutely. Environmental interaction adds a mental level to the game where you feel like the world is more responsive and aware of your actions - where you can, for example, accidentally set something on fire."

 

Buffing each other? You mean like casting barrier? HA! Okay, and what other example is there of enemies buffing or working together? I've never seen a shield warrior intentionally block projectiles to a different enemy. I've never seen any other buffs besides barrier.

 

This statement actually backs up my theory. They created the game up to their own limitations and they could not push beyond them because they had to make a game that would ship. He's saying they didn't create the features shown in the demo. They didn't even bother. Whether this was because of the last gen or their own limited skills, he is at least admitting that the content didn't get created. He's blaming last gen, but like I said, that's just a convenient excuse, one that I don't buy.

 

Based "a little bit on platforms"? So that wasn't even a major reason? The flow of the gameplay? They didn't want to have one zone riddled with that but not others? Is he serious? They didn't want to interrupt the flow of gameplay, that is just flat out ridiculous! Each map has its own style of gameplay and flow. Having some areas have the war feature but not others would be a credit to gameplay variety. Consistency across the game. What a load. And besides, this wasn't about a military campaign simulator, it was about having to choose to save the town of Crestwood or saving your Keep, and dealing with the consequences either way.

 

The trebuchets in Haven were another example of press "whatever" to burn boats, exactly what he said wouldn't be in the game. Burning the boats was supposed to happen by having a mage set it ablaze or having a warrior throw a fire grenade. And this feature actually does exist in the Exalted Plains, only on haystacks that don't really do much. Worst of all, the corpse pits that you are supposed to burn, have the same "press to make happen" crap Laidlaw said would not be the case. I remember purposely having my mage cast immolate on the pit while also clicking that icon to start the scripted fire. And the only reason the trebuchets were kept is because they needed a way to cause the avalanche and end the quest.

 

So glad he wants to revisit those systems. Again I ask, does that mean we will get the content as DLC? I doubt it.

[First Enchanter]

A lot of that stuff sounds amazing, and I'm looking forward to future games taking advantage of what current-gen systems are capable of (I play on a PS4).

 

However, I really detest the idea that gamers are somehow lazy or stupid for wanting something on PS3 or 360...I hate to break it to you, but a lot of people can't afford them. Not when they have other serious expenses and those things are hundreds of dollars, not to mention 60 bucks a pop for a new game (and yes, you can get them cheaper used, but not right away and not that much cheaper...10-20 dollars off at most for a long time, especially for a game that sells well).

 

So yes, obviously, I want the coolest game that technology can provide (and my PS4 can run), but I'm not gonna complain about people not getting the newest systems.

[Asch Lavigne]

I for one am super glad I don't have to defend my keeps. Reminds me of the annoying tower defense games in AC:Revelations whenever you wanted to save one of your dens.

[Jester]

That interview was laughable. Thanks to X Equestris for posting it, and to Sunnie for quoting it.

 

 

Buffing each other? You mean like casting barrier? HA! Okay, and what other example is there of enemies buffing or working together? I've never seen a shield warrior intentionally block projectiles to a different enemy. I've never seen any other buffs besides barrier.

Buffs and teamwork apart from barrier:

1. Magic weapons spells for warriors (cast by enemy mages).

2. Shield bearers frequently stand in front of archers (especially in indoors fighting), blocking all projectiles coming at them.

3. When fighting against rifts, demons buff up wraiths with their respective elements (Rage with fire, Despair with cold and Pride with electricity).

4. Archers weaken enemies (it's more of a debuff on your party, but considering the fact that shielded enemies tend to protect them, it makes those shielded guys tougher to kill).

5. Red Templar Knights turn regular Red Templars into Horrors.

 

There's probably something more, that I don't remember. 

[Hiigo]

lets hope next game is current gen only ps4/xbone/pc.

[Gaesesagai]

Waxing nostalgic; I remember a time when games were designed for PC first with all the bells and whistles, and then ported to console where things got cut to make them work. Now, we get lowest denominator console games ported to next gen/PC with none of the stuff that makes games cool. Sad change is sad.

 

Hear, hear!

[X Equestris]

lets hope next game is current gen only ps4/xbone/pc.

Pretty sure MEA was confirmed as current gen only, so I think it's safe to say DA4 will be as well. Especially since they dropped dlc support for last gen got dropped.

[D_Schattenjager]

Keep part wasn't the only thing that got scrapped. Witcher 3 graphics are a a clear example of how good the game could have been against how it ended up. EA pencil pushing bean counters made a mess of things.

[Dai Grepher]

Buffs and teamwork apart from barrier:

1. Magic weapons spells for warriors (cast by enemy mages).

2. Shield bearers frequently stand in front of archers (especially in indoors fighting), blocking all projectiles coming at them.

3. When fighting against rifts, demons buff up wraiths with their respective elements (Rage with fire, Despair with cold and Pride with electricity).

4. Archers weaken enemies (it's more of a debuff on your party, but considering the fact that shielded enemies tend to protect them, it makes those shielded guys tougher to kill).

5. Red Templar Knights turn regular Red Templars into Horrors.

 

There's probably something more, that I don't remember. 

 

Magic weapons? Cast by enemy mages on their own allied warriors? I don't remember that. When did this happen?

 

Shield bearers are designed to block projectiles fired at them, but the subject here is enemies that work together. I have never seen a shield bearer purposely move to defend one of its allies.

 

Again, this isn't about single enemies buffing themselves. Laidlaw tried making a point about an enemy buffing other enemies.

 

This is not an example of enemies buffing other enemies. This is a debuff on the party.

 

That's a... close example with the red templars. But this is more a case of turning one enemy into a new one. Still, doing this does at least replenish their life bar, so it could count. I'll give you that. But I think this is the only other example there is. So it's just mages casting barrier, and red templars turning others into different enemies.